We all know the feeling: looking at the computer screen, pretending to be interested in our homework, even though we really feel bored. But such feelings may soon be at an end, says Dr. Harry Witchel, head of the Essex Medical School. He believes that computers of the future will notice when people feel bored and even take action to stopit.

    Before you get concerned, the machine won't be reading your mind. It will be observing the many movements you make while using a computer. It's not interested in the big movements needed to use the machine — like moving a mouse or touching a screen — but small, barely noticeable movements like closing your eyes, moving in your seat or rubbing your face. Witchel calls these “boredom movements" and says they show how interested the person is in what they are reading or watching. The higher the interest level, the less movement!

    To test his theory, Witchel invited 27 people to perform various computer-based tasks. The activities ranged from playing online games (an interesting task) to reading documents like government laws that most people would find boring.

A special video camera followed the participants' movements as they completed each task. Just as the researcher expected, the “boredom movements" greatly decreased, by as much as 42%，when the subjects were very interested in what they were reading or seeing.

    Fortunately, Dr Witchel isn't planning to use his results to create machines that report students who are not paying attention at school. Instead, he wants “movement sensing” technology to be built into future computers in order to improve students' computer-based learning experience.

    The scientist says that by measuring the students' interest level as they work, educators will be able to adjust their materials in real-time to keep students focused. Witchel also believes that the technology can provide filmmakers with honest audience opinions and in the future, help to develop more intelligent robots.

    Recently, we've been talking about how we need better teachers. There's no doubt that great teacher can help in a student's learning but here's what some new studies are also showing: We need better parents.

    Every three years, the organization called O.E.C.D. organizes exams as part of the Program for International Student Assessment(评估), or PISA, which tests 15-year-olds on their abilities to deal with real problems. America's 15-year-olds have not done as well as students in Singapore, Finland and Shanghai in the PISA exams.

    To better understand the reasons, the PISA team, starting with four countries in 2006, and then adding 14 more in 2009, went to the parents of 5,000 students. They interviewed them about how they raised their kids and then compared it with the test results for each of those years. Two weeks ago, the PISA team published the main finding of its study.

    Fifteen-year-olds whose parents often read books with them during their first year of primary school get much higher scores in PISA 2009 than students whose parents don't often read with them or not at all. Parents' concern for their children is strongly connected with better results in PISA.

    According to Schleicher, the leader of the team, just asking your children how their school    day was and showing great interest in their learning can help a lot. It is something every parent can do, no matter what their education level is.

    The study found that getting parents concerned about their children's learning at home is more powerful than parents attending parent-teacher meetings, volunteering in classrooms,   taking part in money-raising, and showing up at back-to-back nights.

    To be sure, nothing can replace a good teacher. But let's stop putting the whole duty on teachers. We also need better parents. Better parents can make teaching more beneficial.

    I visited Copenhagen for the first time last Easter. As a student，I'm always strapped for cash，so I assumed I could only afford to breathe the air — but luckily everything about Copenhagen is breathtaking.

I was staying in an Airbnb, and rented a bike so I could cover more ground. One of the first places I visited was the Rundetaarn, or "round tower" built in the 17th century as an astronomical observatory. It has an equestrian staircase (a wide set of stairs big enough for horses to use) that went on and on. As I was going up, I stopped to visit the tower's library hall. At the top, there's a glass platform that gives a view 80-foot straight down, as well as a bell loft. Luckily, the views over Copenhagen from the top were well worth the climb.

    After coming down, I hiked up to the Kastellet Fortress to see the famous Little Mermaid statue. Taking a photo with her was almost impossible with all the tourists crowding around—but sitting there and hearing the lapping waves of the deep blue Baltic Sea, waiting for the sun to set, was an unforgettable and calming experience.

    The next day, I visited the Glyptotek art museum, exploring the grand exhibits. I looked into the marble eyes of many Roman gods，and walked down dimly lit staircases to see mummies from Egypt.

    Before I unwillingly boarded the train back to the airport, I told myself that I must visit again—to experience the thrills of Tivoli Gardens, try more of the street food and everything else from this amazing city.

    “Belittle” was first used by Thomas Jefferson, the third president of the United States.

    Many years ago, Buffon, a French naturalist, wrote some books about natural history. The books were a great success even though some critics did not like them. Some critics said, “Buffon is more of a poet than a scientist.”

    Thomas Jefferson did not like what Buffon had said about the natural wonders of the New World. It seemed to Jefferson that Buffon had spoken of natural wonders in America as if they were unimportant.

    This troubled Thomas Jefferson. He was a naturalist, as well as a farmer, inventor, historian, writer and politician. He had seen the natural wonders of Europe. To him, they were no more important than those of the New World.

    In 1788, Thomas Jefferson wrote about his home state, Virginia. While writing, he thought of its natural beauty and then of the words of Buffon. At that moment, Jefferson created a new word－belittle. He said, “Buffon believes that nature belittles her productions on this side of the Atlantic.”

    Noah Webster, the American word expert, liked this word. He put it in his English language dictionary in 1806, “Belittle－to make somebody or something small, unimportant.”

    Americans had already accepted Jefferson's word and started to use it. In 1797, the Independent Chronicle newspaper used the word to describe a politician the paper supported. “He is an honorable man,” the paper wrote, “so let the opposition try to belittle him as much as they please.

    In 1872, a famous American word expert decided that the time had come to kill this word. He said, “'Belittle' has no chance of becoming English. And as more critical writers of America, like those of Britain, feel no need of it, the sooner it is forgotten, the better.” This expert failed to kill the word. Today, “belittle” is used where the English language is spoken.

    For centuries, in the countries of South and Southeast Asia, the elephant has been an important part of the culture, economy and religion. And nowhere more so than in Thailand. Unlike its African cousin, the Asian elephant is easily domesticated. The rare so­called white elephants have actually lent the power of royalty to its rulers, and until the 1920s the national flag was a white elephant on a red background. To the early Western visitors, the country's romantic name was "Land of the White Elephant"．

    Today, however, the story is very different. Out of work and out of land, the Thai elephant struggles for survival in a nation that no longer needs it. The elephant has found itself more or less deserted by previous owners who have moved on to a different economic world and a society in the western part. And while the elephant's problems began many years ago, now it has a very low national advantage.

    How does the national symbol turn into ignored animals? It is a story of worse environment and the changing lives of the Thais themselves. According to Richard Lair, Thailand's expert on the Asian elephant and author of the report Gone Astray, at the turn of the last century, there may well have been as many as 100,000 national elephants in the country.

    In the north of Thailand alone, it was estimated that more than 20,000 elephants were employed in transport, 1,000 of them alone on the road between the cities of Chiang Mai and Chiang Saen. This was at a time when 90 percent of Thailand was still forest—a habitat that not only supported the animals but also made them necessary to carry goods and people. Nothing ploughs through thick forest better than lots of sure­footed elephants.

    By 1950 the elephant population had dropped, but still to the number of 13,397. However, today there are probably no more than 3,800, with another 1,350 wandering free in the national parks. But now, Thailand's forest covers only 20 percent of the land. This deforestation (采伐森林) is the central point of the elephant's difficult situation, for it has effectively put the animals out of work. This century, as the road network grew, the elephant's role as a beast of burden decreased.